Mark,
It is your and Steve's definition with Heather's ideas. I just made the
aggregation and the amendments. Kind of standing on the shoulders of giants
(Haven't seen you folks f2f yet to see if you are really giants with broad
shoulders :o))
| - not sure what a "binding" is in this context
| - don't know what "direct interactions" means
<KS>
My take on this is the definition of the "first contact" point Mike
mentioned.
</KS>
| - don't know what the significance of the distinction between
| "application" and "component" is
<KS>
Yep. Like I pointed out earlier, to get the job done, the web service can
invoke a component, just do it by itself or aggregate other web services or
just sit tight. So component, application et al are kind of synonymous here.
I am trading very lightly here, as we (as in Cisco) had months of passionate
debate on services Vs components, still going strong.
</KS>
cheers
| -----Original Message-----
| From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
| Behalf Of Mark Baker
| Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 11:39 AM
| To: Champion, Mike
| Cc: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
| Subject: Re: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]
|
|
| > For me, it's where the "contract" between the service
| > provider and the service consumer becomes explicit and
| detailed enough so
| > that a programmer could invoke the service and use the
| results, without any
| > "AI" stuff, of course.
|
| Yup, exactly. My definition too.
|
| BTW, I generally like the other definition proposed by Krishna(?). I
| see it as very much like the one Steve and I promoted, though a bit
| fuzzy in meaning in places. Specifically;
|
| - not sure what a "binding" is in this context
| - don't know what "direct interactions" means
| - don't know what the significance of the distinction between
| "application" and "component" is
|
| MB
| --
| Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
| Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com
| http://www.markbaker.cahttp://www.planetfred.com
|
|